Thursday, 12 March 2009


Breach of Contract?
Does the State or A Water Undertaker
have an enforceable contract to supply
water that is not artificially fluoridated?

"Wherever you live, your local Water Company must supply you with water that is fit for human consumption. Exactly what this is has been laid down by law, but what if the water delivered to your home is not the product that you believe it to be? Is fluoridated water actually 'water for human consumption', and are you obliged to accept it?
In a word, no. Any 'medicinal water' is excluded from control under both the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations and the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations – so you should not drink or prepare food with fluoridated water.
South Central SHA's order to Southern Water to fluoridate Southampton's water supplies has started a process that will, if it runs to completion, result in the supply of an entirely different product to every resident (and food processor) in the City. Instead of the foodstuff customers expect, they will suddenly find themselves landed with a largely unwanted and unreturnable medicinal product, fluoridated water. And what's more, it's not even a legal medicine - it doesn't have a medicinal Licence.
So - does the SHA Board really have the clout to force Southern Water to break its contract to supply drinking water to tens of thousands of its domestic customers in the City? Can it force the Company to supply food processors (and cafe's restaurants, etc) with an unlicensed medicine instead of 'potable water'?
Or has the Company the nerve to stand up to the Health Police and tell them that it respects its customers a damned sight more than it respects them? We are watching this with considerable interest – someday soon this issue will rock the Establishment to its core."
The above is an extract from the UK Councils Against Fluoride Web Site.

Monday, 9 March 2009


As one of our correspondents puts it, "Read the Wikipedia page on Fluoridation and be astonished!" Well I did, and he's absolutely correct. The item on fluoride is so inaccurate and out of date that it defies belief and certainly reflects badly on both Wikipedia itself and on anti-fluoride campaigners for not editing it until this late stage of the farce. Any volunteers out there who think they can help? If so, just register with Wikipedia and start correcting.

And dont worry, Even if you try, you will find it very difficult to make it less accurate. It currently shows every symptom of being written exclusively by our "friends," at the BDA, Messrs, Cockcroft and Ward, ( the Ant and Dec of the pro-fluoridation movement) which easily explains the complete lack of balance and accuracy at present. See for yourself at....